In this work, we analyze the Ideology present in some legal landmarks of the Inclusive Education and the discourse of some teachers about this perspective in Education. We will start from historical data of the
Inclusive Education, in order to compare the preexisting and the new implanted discoursive order, and consequently to understand the discourse that is constructed and at the same time constructs a social
transformation. This research is based on the qualitative methods and use the theories and the methods of analysis of the speech of Fairclough (2001 and 2003), as well as the theories on Ideology of Thompson
(1995). These approaches interact and serve here as a support to understand the elaboration and the interpretation of the legal text that provides the foundations of the Inclusive Education. This work tries to
understand the reasons of the resistance in the execution of the inclusive perspective. Thus being, when analyzing the present ideology in these legal texts is intended here to promote a reflection on the difficulties of the implantation of this proposal. The conclusions show that, in the discursive construction of the legal texts and the interviews of teachers, the language is assumed as an element in the social practice which is a vehicle of the Ideology against
the Inclusive Education.

This research inserts in the context of change in course at school that promotes ?education for all?. The normative and educational agents are crucial parts of this process, they put in the perspective change and flexibility, which enables students with autism spectrum disorders to progress at their own pace, within the structured teaching method ?TEACH?. This drove us to investigate ?which factors involved in developing inclusive practices in the structured teaching Units for education of students with autism spectrum disorders?. A methodological approach of quantitative character was assumed, which 75 individuals participated freely to whom were given a survey specifically designed and validated, which was intended to evaluate their position in view of the inclusion of these students. The results emerge in the follow-up of previous searches, and it was found that the definition of these disorders is still not consensual and regular education teachers continue to
present more resistance while the special education teachers have more inclusive placements, inferring difficulties inherent to the training. This enabled us to indicate the need to implement training with in various educational agents to dilute, progressively, the unit for the regular room, school and education community leading to intentions and applying strategies for this purpose.